A.F. Branco Cartoon – After Jake Tapper blasted conservatives for accusing Democrats of ignoring Biden’s mental decline, he comes out with his book “Original Sin”. Explaining how the Democrats and the White House covered up his mental decline as though he weren’t a part of the cover-up.
After Criticizing Any Discussion Of Joe Biden’s Cognitive Decline, Jake Tapper Seeks to Profit from the Cover-up
Margaret Flavin – The Gateway Pundit – Feb 26, 2025
CNN’s Jake Tapper was a harsh critic of anyone who dared to raise the topic of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. But now that he can profit from the coverup he and his fellow “journalists” participated in, Tapper is ready to profit off the deception. Tapper is plugging his new book Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, which is set for release in May 2025. An overview of the book reads:… READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – DFL (Democrats) are willing to fight to the end for Illegal aliens but not for Minnesota citizens.
BRANCO TOON STORE
Will budget agreement hold? DFLers decry cuts to state health care for illegal immigrants
By Luke Sprinkel – AlphaNews.org – May 16, 2025
DFL legislators lashed out when it was announced that illegal immigrants would no longer be eligible for MinnesotaCare under the deal. Gov. Tim Walz and legislative leaders in Minnesota have agreed to a two-year state budget deal that significantly reduces a looming $6 billion deficit, raises taxes only on marijuana, and is several billion dollars smaller than the state’s record $72 billion budget from 2023. The deal also brings a big change to MinnesotaCare, a state-run health care program for low income individuals. Under a compromise reached by Gov. Walz, DFL legislative leaders, and House Speaker Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, adult illegal aliens will no longer be allowed to enroll in MinnesotaCare… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
Data released Tuesday shows that egg prices dropped 12.7 percent last month — the “biggest monthly decline since 1984.” The report follows weeks of President Donald Trump telling Americans that egg prices were falling — welcome news after the cost of eggs rose for 17 out of the past 19 months, according to CNN. But the left-wing legacy outlet is scrambling to process the eggcellent news.
CNN’s David Goldman wrote Tuesday that “For months, President Donald Trump has falsely claimed that egg prices are tumbling. It wasn’t true then, but it’s true now.”
Goldman continues:
“Despite Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ far more conservative estimate that egg prices would normalize in the summer, Trump last month said, ‘as you know, the cost of eggs has come down like 93, 94% since we took office.’ Those percentage declines Trump stated are not close to accurate – but we now know that consumer egg prices were, indeed, falling sharply when Trump made those remarks (the Consumer Price Index data wasn’t out yet to confirm or deny Trump’s claims).”
CNN admits egg prices “were, indeed, falling sharply when Trump made those remarks,” but a few sentences later bizarrely still claims the “timing of his claim” was wrong.
Translation: Trump said something that turned out to be true (egg prices fell), but because we didn’t have the same data at the exact moment Trump said it, he was wrong.
That’s one of the propaganda press’ favorite things to do: dismiss or discredit the truth but then claim credit for discovering it themselves later and grant permission to everyone else to acknowledge it. Goldman’s piece is hardly an outlier. It’s the norm. Take the propaganda press’ coverage of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’ Alex Thompson are awaiting the release of their new book Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, which details Biden’s decline over four years. The excerpts released thus far read more like a confessional of sins long known to anyone with a set of eyes and ears.
But the book and discussions amongst the left are all happening well after Tapper and the legacy media themselves engaged in the cover-up. The media decided that Biden wasn’t cognitively declining and essentially painted anyone who questioned the narrative as a far-right “conspiracy theorist” not acting “in good faith.”
The examples are endless. But now that Tapper, Thompson, and the rest of them can make a few bucks off telling the truth, they’re willing to do it.
Or take the coverage of masks during Covid. The New York Times’ Zach Montague said in September 2020 it was a “dangerous assertion” to state that wearing masks during the pandemic had “little to no medical value.” Fast forward just over two years when Bret Stephens, writing for The Times, declared, “The Mask Mandates Did Nothing. Will Any Lessons Be Learned?” Stephens highlighted a report that found there was “no evidence” masks made “any difference.”
To be clear, it was a “dangerous assertion” to say masks did nothing until the propaganda press decided it was okay to make that same assertion. As the Federalist’s Elle Purnell wrote, outlets like the New York Times “played a significant role in defending the officially sanctioned [Covid] narrative” and “chok[ed] dissent.”
And then, of course, there’s the alternative — where something is true until the media says it no longer is, like the case of the propaganda press running cover for Kamala Harris’ devastating management of the border as vice president.
As The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd wrote last year, “Years after acknowledging and even praising President Joe Biden for naming Vice President Kamala Harris ‘border czar,’ corporate media claimed the presumptive 2024 Democrat nominee was never charged with overseeing the logistics of the record-breaking invasion.”
In each case, one pattern remains the same: The truth never changed, only the media’s willingness to acknowledge it. Whether it’s egg prices, Biden’s cognitive decline, mask mandates, or who was in charge of the southern border, the facts don’t seem to matter to the propaganda press.
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2
We previously discussed the defamation lawsuit brought by Navy veteran Zachary Young against CNN and anchor Jake Tapper. Young has been doing well in court and last week he won on additional major issues against CNN. In a pair of orders, the jury will be allowed to award punitive damages, and his experts would be allowed to be heard by the jury on the damages in the case. It also found that the Navy veteran was not a public figure and thus is not subject to the higher standard of proof associated with that status.
The punitive damages decision is particularly interesting legally. It could prove financially onerous for the struggling network, which has plunging ratings and has reduced staff.
The court found that CNN’s “retraction” was insufficient to remove punitive damages from the table. In my torts class, we discuss retraction statutes and the requirements of time and clarity. I specifically discussed the CNN case.
The report at the heart of the case aired on a Nov. 11, 2021 segment on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” and was shared on social media and (a different version) on CNN’s website. In the segment, Tapper tells his audience ominously how CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.”
Marquardt piled on in the segment, claiming that “desperate Afghans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” to flee the country. He then named Young and his company as an example of that startling claim.
The damages in the case could be massive but Young was facing the higher New York Times v. Sullivan standard of “actual malice,” requiring a showing of knowing falsehood or a reckless disregard of the truth. Judge Roberts previously found that “Young sufficiently proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a level of conduct outrageous enough to open the door for him to seek punitive damages.”
The evidence included messages from Marquardt that he wanted to “nail this Zachary Young mfucker” and thought the story would be Young’s “funeral.” After promising to “nail” Young, CNN editor Matthew Philips responded: “gonna hold you to that cowboy!” Likewise, CNN senior editor Fuzz Hogan described Young as “a shit.”
As is often done by media, CNN allegedly gave Young only two hours to respond before the story ran. It is a typical ploy of the press to claim that they waited for a response while giving the target the smallest possible window. In this case, Young was able to respond in the short time and Marquardt messaged a colleague, “fucking Young just texted.”
That record supports a showing of actual malice. However, CNN wanted to avoid punitive damages with a claim of retraction. Under Florida’s Section §770.02(1), a publication seeking this protection must publish a “full and fair correction, apology or retraction.” While the statute does not define “full and fair” it does specify that the retraction shall be “published in the same editions or corresponding issues of the newspaper or periodical” where the original article appeared and ‘in as conspicuous place and type’ as the original, or for a broadcast “at a comparable time.”
In this case, Jake Tapper made the following statement on March 25, 2022:
“And before we go, a correction. In November, we ran a story about Afghans desperate to pay high sums beyond the reach of average Afghans. The story included a lead-in and banner throughout the story that referenced a black market. The use of the term black market in the story was in error. The story included reporting on Zachary Young, a private operator who had been contacted by family members of Afghans trying to flee the country. We didn’t mean to suggest that Mr. Young participated in the black market. We regret the error and to Mr. Young, we apologize.”
However, the court noted:
“The retraction/correction was not made during the other television shows in which the Segment aired. No retraction, correction or apology was posted on any online article or with any social media posting. Defendant’s representatives referred to the statement made on the Jake Tapper show as a correction rather than a retraction.”
Not only did the court find that insufficient, but it menacingly added, “the Court finds that there is an issue of material fact as to whether Defendant published a full and fair retraction as required by §770.02 for the televised segment and no retraction for the social media and online article postings, which could be additional evidence of actual malice.”
This is relatively new ground for the Florida courts and will undoubtedly be appealed in time. For now, punitive damages will remain an option for the jury. The message to news organizations is that minimizing retractions can produce a critical loss of the coverage of the common statutory provisions protecting the media.
It is also worth noting that Young was found to be a private individual and not a “public figure.” After the Supreme Court handed down New York Times v. Sullivan, it extended the actual malice standard from public officials to public figures. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974), the Court wrote:
“Hypothetically, it may be possible for someone to become a public figure through no purposeful action of his own, but the instances of truly involuntary public figures must be exceedingly rare. For the most part those who attain this status have assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society. Some occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes. More commonly, those classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. In either event, they invite attention and comment.”
The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).
In creating this higher burden, the Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard for both public officials and public figures. Public figures are viewed as having an enhanced ability to defend themselves and engaging in “self-help” in the face of criticism. The Court also viewed these figures as thrusting themselves into the public eye, voluntarily assuming the risk of heightened criticism. I have previously written about the continuing questions over the inclusion of public figures with public officials in tort actions.
However, the court found that Young did not trip this wire.
“Young’s limited posts do not constitute him thrusting himself ‘to the forefront’ of the Afghanistan evacuation ‘controversy.’ In total, Plaintiffs worked for four companies and evacuated 22 people from Afghanistan. Per Defendant’s Segment, ‘[t]here [were] fewer than Page 13 of 34100 American citizens in Afghanistan who [were] ready to leave’ and ‘countless Afghans, including thousands who worked for or aided the US . . . who are frantically trying to leave.’ While Young was clearly trying to advertise his services, it can hardly be said that he played a sufficiently central role or was at the forefront in being able to influence the resolution of all those unable to escape Afghanistan. He was not going to get all these thousands of people out, nor was he ever intending to as he (according to his posts and testimony) was only assisting those with sponsors. He also was not going to convince the Taliban to let these folks leave the country. As such, Plaintiffs do not meet the test for this second suggested controversy to be labeled as limited public figures.”
The court also ruled that Young would be allowed to keep his economic damages expert witness, Richard Bolko, a ruling that, in conjunction with the punitive damages matter, could spell real trouble for CNN.
Jake Tapper speaks on May 15, 2024, in New York City. (Kevin Mazur/Getty Images for Warner Bros. Discovery)
News consumers are often unaware of just how friendly the power players in Washington are, and those relationships are often undisclosed. You can tell that Trump haters have a common cause, but it can go much deeper than that. On CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” on Sept. 3, the host brought on Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to promote his new book (of old essays) titled “On Heroism: McCain, Milley, Mattis, and the Cowardice of Donald Trump.” These two men are obviously allies. But they’re also good friends.
This made me recall the newest season of the Netflix food show “Somebody Feed Phil,” starring Phil Rosenthal, the creator of the sitcom “Everybody Loves Raymond.” In an episode touting food spots in Washington, D.C., he had dinner with Goldberg and Tapper at the Indian restaurant Rasika.
The first clue of the friendship is Tapper walking in and tickling the back of Goldberg’s head. Tapper announced, “His kids babysat for my kids.” This doesn’t appear in an on-screen graphic when Goldberg appears on Tapper’s show. Later, he mocked Goldberg when he started talking about his visit to a nuclear bunker. That’s a Washington flex, Tapper said, like saying, “Once I was talking to Fidel Castro over mojitos … ”
Tapper clearly thrilled Goldberg when Rosenthal asked if they were optimistic or pessimistic about the future. Tapper declared: “I’ve just never been in a time where, like, things that I’ve took (sic) for granted—like democracy, and respecting the right of people to vote and all that—were so just, like, nakedly being torn down by major leaders.”
He clearly wouldn’t include Democrats trying to tear Trump’s name off the ballot and forcing Joe Biden out of the race and then trying to keep third-party leftists Jill Stein and Cornel West off the ballot while, at the same time, trying to keep Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s name on the ballot after he left the race and endorsed Trump.
In Tapper’s latest Goldberg interview, they discussed John McCain’s son Jim endorsing Kamala Harris. Goldberg implied that’s how McCain would have voted this year. Then they decried Trump visiting Arlington Cemetery with grieving Gold Star families and filming the visit. Neither man acknowledged uncomfortable truths, such as McCain filming a campaign advertisement at Arlington, not to mention the professional photographs Biden had taken there.
All this gave Goldberg the license to repeat his magazine’s most hostile Trump stories: “He obviously, very famously got out of Vietnam. He equally famously has referred to people who get killed on behalf of the country as suckers and losers.” Goldberg mused to Rosenthal that social media is a “vast unregulated experiment,” but no one regulates Goldberg for repeating claims for which he has no evidence—nothing recorded, just claimed. Many people around Trump said it never happened.
Tapper then asked why Trump-hating generals like [Mark] Milley and [James] Mattis won’t openly come out for Harris. “The military is apolitical,” claimed Goldberg without giggling. Because soon he admitted that generals “let it be known, through journalists and through other means, what happened inside the White House in Donald Trump’s first term.”
“The military is apolitical,” except when it leaks to anti-Trump news outlets about how horrible Trump is. Which makes it political, especially the staying-anonymous part. It’s about as apolitical as Goldberg and Tapper.
When the interview was over, Tapper announced Goldberg’s Trump-the-coward book title again and said, “Congratulations. I read them when you first wrote them. And I’ll read them again. This nice little book, good!”
All we were missing was Tapper tickling Goldberg’s head.
We previously discussed the defamation lawsuit against CNN and the curious effort to use Taliban law to dismiss the lawsuit by Navy veteran Zachary Young. The litigation has not been going well for the network and it just lost another key motion to block an effort to depose Jake Tapper. Worse yet, the court appears to have questioned the veracity of the host in a sworn deposition on his lack of knowledge over the financial subject matter of the deposition.
CNN recently lost a recent major ruling when the court found that there was evidence of malice by CNN to support the higher standard needed for defamation. The evidence in the case is remarkably bad for the network after discovery of internal memoranda and emails.
The report at the heart of the case aired on a Nov. 11, 2021, segment on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” and was shared on social media and (a different version) on CNN’s website. In the segment, Tapper tells his audience ominously how CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.”
Marquardt piled on in the segment, claiming that “desperate Afghans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” to flee the country. He then named Young and his company as the example of that startling claim.
The damages in the case could be massive but Young had to satisfy the higher New York Times v. Sullivan standard of “actual malice” with a showing of knowing falsehood or a reckless disregard of the truth. Judge Roberts found that “Young sufficiently proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a level of conduct outrageous enough to open the door for him to seek punitive damages.”
The evidence included messages from Marquardt that he wanted to “nail this Zachary Young mfucker” and thought the story would be Young’s “funeral.” After promising to “nail” Young, CNN editor Matthew Philips responded: “gonna hold you to that cowboy!” Likewise, CNN senior editor Fuzz Hogan described Young as “a shit.”
As is often done by media, CNN allegedly gave Young only two hours to respond before the story ran. It is a typical ploy of the press to claim that they waited for a response while giving the target the smallest possible window. In this case, Young was able to respond in the short time and Marquardt messaged a colleague, “fucking Young just texted.”
The case now appears to have moved into a second discovery period over CNN’s finances. The plaintiff’s counsel wants to depose Tapper. I can certainly understand Tapper’s counsel in trying to block the deposition on finances. I am not sure how much Tapper would know about the finances, but the court clearly did not take well to his declaration.
NewsBusters previously reported, CNN had filed a motion for a protective order in which CNN counsel Allison Lovelady insisted that the Plaintiff only wanted a deposition so they could use it to “harass CNN and Mr. Tapper.” However, the court shot down the effort and reportedly stated “I kind of have a hard time believing what Mr. Tapper put in that declaration.” Since that is a sworn declaration made under penalty of perjury, it was a stinging rebuke.
Unlike the earlier depositions, this stage is confined to finances and possible penalties. The defense team clearly believes the deposition is an effort to re-open fact deposition testimony that should be now foreclosed. There is always a risk to any witness from the added exposure to renewed questioning. However, it is hard to get a protective order on conclusory assurances of no relevant knowledge. The court clearly believes that Tapper could have some relevant information since he holds one of the most lucrative contracts at CNN and is familiar with the corporate finances in relation to his show.
Tapper’s counsel also attempted other “Hail Mary” motions seeking to delay any deposition until rulings on other cases dealing with punitive damages. CNN lost a critical motion in seeking to bar punitive damages. That is, of course, the big-ticket item for the network in this type of case. To limit Young to compensatory damages would make any damages manageable for the company, even if a verdict would damage its reputation.
In one tense exchange, the counsel argued over a motion to force Young to appear personally for settlement discussions. His counsel explained that it was difficult for him because of an injury he sustained while in the Navy, which made it difficult to sit for long periods. CNN’s lead counsel Deanna K. Shullman shot back “So do I, your Honor!” “I have to leave the State of Florida to get to Bay County. CNN has to travel from the state of Georgia.” CNN prevailed on that and one other motion on an extension of time. CNN is trying to delay the January trial date, but Young’s counsel has indicated that it wants to stick with that date and has little interest in settlement.
Tapper, however, will now have to appear on the financial questions in the ongoing litigation.
A new set of anti-Trump talking points has been cropping up in the corporate press recently, warning of the horrors that will come to pass if Trump wins the election. Most of it is shameless fearmongering, but there’s something else going on too.
Democrats are afraid that if Trump is elected he’ll do to them precisely what they’re currently doing to him. When Trump fearmongers in the media cry out with one voice that Trump will weaponize the Justice Department and the courts, rig our elections, and shred the Constitution, it’s pure projection. Because that’s exactly what they’re doingright now in a desperate bid to prevent Trump from winning office again.
It should go without saying that this suddenly ubiquitous media genre is extremely dangerous. As my colleague Mollie Hemingway aptly put it in response to a hysterical Trump-as-dictator piece by Robert Kagan in The Washington Post, you might as well call it “assassination prep.”
That’s according to their own logic. After all, these people claim the republic itself is at stake and that we’re about to descend into autocracy. Liz Cheney went on NBC News over the weekend to flog her new book and warn in dire tones that in a second Trump term there’ll be “no guardrails that can stop him.” She says if Trump wins, he’ll become a fascist dictator, never leave office, and plunge the United States into tyranny.
She’s not alone in this absurd belief. The prospect of dictator Trump is more or less the entire theme of a new special edition of The Atlantic, ominously titled “If Trump Wins,” for which the magazine’s writers dutifully churned out two dozen essays fantasizing about the hellscape America will become if Trump is ever allowed back into the Oval Office. Nearly every facet of our national life would be left in ruins, they say, and America will be changed forever.
CNN’s Jake Tapper was apparently so scared out of his wits by these essays, he brought some of the writers and editors onto his show to talk about their prognostications of doom for the republic under Trump — including, Tapper said with a straight face, “how women could be targeted” under a Trump “retribution presidency.”
Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg replied to Tapper that a second-term Trump would be “bent on revenge,” because he “knows how he was thwarted” the first time. Well, yes — but not necessarily in the way Goldberg means it.
Trump was certainly thwarted the first time around — not thwarted in some dictatorial scheme but in the normal exercise of his office. A deeply corrupt media establishment — including the likes of Tapper and Goldberg — worked hand-in-glove with anti-Trump elements in the federal bureaucracy to peddle the Russia-collusion hoax in an unprecedented attempt to oust him from office or, failing that, undermine his presidency. During the 2020 election, many of these same elements succeeded in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story. And after Jan. 6, 2021, they have cheered on the blatant weaponization of the justice system unleashed by Biden and the Democrats.
You almost have to admire the audacity of Democrats actively doing to Trump everything they say Trump will do to them if he regains the White House. You can’t get more on-the-nose in this regard than a triple-bylined piece that ran in The New York Times on Monday warning, “Mr. Trump’s vow to use the Justice Department to wreak vengeance against his adversaries is a naked challenge to democratic values. Building on how he tried to get prosecutors to go after his enemies while in office, it would end the post-Watergate norm of investigative independence from White House political control.”
It’s almost like the Times is trolling its readers with this. Surely the reporters and editors behind this laughable piece of agitprop know that this is exactly what the Biden Justice Department and powerful Democrats nationwide are now doing to Trump. The idea that Merrick Garland is some sort of straight-shooting attorney general is a joke. Not one person in America really believes it.
So, what do Democrats and their media courtesans do? They lean into the gaslighting, claiming over and over in the most outlandish terms that a second Trump term will bring about everything that’s happening now under President Biden. Why? Because they’re desperate. They know that owing to the weakness and corruption and unpopularity of the current president, there’s a chance Trump just might win next year. That’s why Democrat attorneys general and federal prosecutors want so desperately to convict him of a crime, any crime, and why editors and writers at the Times and The Atlantic will say almost anything to scare voters with horror stories about what will happen if Trump wins.
They also crave power. For people like Cheney and Kagan and Goldberg and every other establishment player, Trump’s great crime wasn’t anything he did or said on Jan. 6, it was that he won the election in November 2016. That wasn’t supposed to happen. Democrats and the permanent regime in Washington were supposed to remain in power forever. Trump had the audacity to win, and they can’t let it happen again.
In that effort, they’re willing to do and say almost anything. Throughout Trump’s stint in office, Democrats, establishment Republicans like Cheney, and nearly every major media outlet worked overtime to trample norms, bend the rules, break various laws, and undermine a duly elected president simply because they were incensed that they weren’t in power.
Remember that when they say what Trump will do in a second term. They’re doing it right now.
John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. He is the author of the forthcoming book, Pagan America: the Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come, to be published in March 2024. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.
CNN’s Jake Tapper ripped President Joe Biden’s administration Friday for stating a false claim about the COVID-19 pandemic. The White House claimed in a Thursday tweet that no vaccines were available when the president assumed office in January 2021 and touted the decrease in unemployment since the start of his term.
When President Biden took office, millions were unemployed and there was no vaccine available.
In the last 15 months, the economy has created 8.3M jobs and the unemployment rate stands at 3.6% — the fastest decline in unemployment to start a President's term ever recorded.
“It’s amazing this White House tweet is still up,” Tapper told White House senior medical advisor Anthony Fauci. “As you know, that’s not true. There were vaccines available, they may not have been widely available, but it was available. CNN fact checker Daniel Dale points out more than 3 million Americans had been fully vaccinated, more than 18 million had at least one shot by Inauguration Day. I think President Biden had two shots by then.”
“You’re the president’s chief medical advisor, why is the White House politicizing the pandemic by tweeting out that there was no vaccine available until Joe Biden became president? It’s not true,” Tapper continued.
“From pure accuracy, that’s not a correct statement,” Fauci said. “But, I mean, it just went out, I’m sorry. There’s nothing I can do about that, Jake.”
The first COVID-19 vaccine dose was administered on Dec. 15, 2020, under former President Donald Trump’s administration. The day prior to Biden’s inauguration, nearly 1.2 million doses had been administered. The president received his first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine on Dec. 21, 2020, and his second on Jan. 13, 2021.
The tweet has yet to be corrected and has not been flagged as misinformation by Twitter, though the platform has a history of labeling tweets deemed to be mis-or disinformation about the vaccine.
CNN anchor Jake Tapper criticzed President Joe Biden on Sunday over his dismissive attitude toward military reports detailing the Biden administration’s failures that contributed to the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Biden was confronted about the reports in an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt, and Biden said he was “rejecting” the conclusions and accounts shared in those reports.
Toward the end of CNN’s “State of the Union,” Tapper sharply criticized Biden for his sweeping dismissal of accounts critical of his administration’s Afghanistan exit.
“It’s difficult to overstate how insulting Biden’s sweeping rejection is to so many service members and veterans, given the full content of the 2,000 pages of documents in this U.S. Army investigation, which CNN has also obtained,” Tapper said.
“Many accounts are from troops who were on the ground at the gates near the canal around the airport, noncommissioned officers, junior officers, Joes, people with little political motivation to lie, and heavy legal and moral obligation to tell the truth in sworn statements,” he continued.
CNN's @JakeTapper on Biden dismissing a US Army report on the failures of the Afghanistan pullout: "I don't doubt President Biden cares, but I do not understand why he would not manifest that care into taking this investigation more seriously." #CNNSOTUpic.twitter.com/52CUlqXUu0
Tapper later added that he does not “doubt that President Biden cares” about the lives lost during the evacuation, but questioned Biden’s cavalier attitude toward the military reports.
“I do not understand why he would not manifest that care into taking this investigation more seriously, absorbing the tragic details, contemplating the obvious failures of his administration, failures that cost lives,” Tapper said.
“Now, Biden always bristles at this because he feels confident that ending the war in Afghanistan was the right decision. But that’s not the question at hand,” he explained. “It’s not whether, but how the war ended and what that means to the people who were there when it did finally end.”
Tapper also condemned Biden for dismissing the validity of military testimony about the chaotic exit on the basis of “that’s not what I was told.”
“If [the truth] was not what you were told, then what was? And don’t you have an obligation, sir, to be told?” Tapper questioned, adding that Biden must demonstrate he actually cares. “Otherwise, isn’t it just words?”
The Washington Post obtained after-action military reports last week that lay bare the Biden administration’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. The reports include testimony from top U.S. military commanders who alleged the Biden administration failed to grasp the seriousness of the Taliban’s swift takeover of Afghanistan, thereby placing U.S. personnel and Afghan allies in great danger. Navy Rear Adm. Peter Vasely, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan during the withdrawal operation, told Army investigators that military personnel would have been “much better prepared to conduct a more orderly” evacuation “if policymakers had paid attention to the indicators of what was happening on the ground.”
Among the more egregious accusations, one military officer told Army investigators that as military personnel worked to evacuate the U.S. embassy in Kabul, State Department employees and other diplomatic personnel were “intoxicated and cowering in rooms” while others were “operating like it was day-to-day operations with absolutely no sense of urgency or recognition of the situation.”
Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, chief of U.S. Central Command, admitted in an interview with the Post that military commanders “would have preferred” other evacuations plans than the one Biden approved, “but when the president makes a decision, it’s time for us to execute the president’s decision.”
Regarding the abandonment of Bagram Airfield, McKenzie also told the Post, “Everyone clearly saw some of the advantage of holding Bagram, but you cannot hold Bagram with the force level that was decided.”
(Photo by Taylor Crul/U.S. Air Force via Getty Images)
The chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in recent weeks has left Americans stranded in the capital city of Kabul, and in response, a disparate group of private citizens has stepped up to get people out of the country. President Joe Biden stuck to his plan to withdraw the remaining U.S. military forces from Afghanistan even as thousands of American citizens, legal permanent residents and Afghan Special Immigration Visa applicants remained at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul.
Biden defended the evacuation in an address Tuesday by claiming 90% of Americans who wanted to leave the country were evacuated successfully. His remarks came one day after Secretary of State Antony Blinken admitted that between 100 and 200 Americans had been left behind after the U.S. military completed its withdrawal.
President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the end of the war in Afghanistan in the State Dining Room at the White House on August 31, 2021 in Washington, DC (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
As the Aug. 31 withdrawal deadline approached, a number of private citizens with former military or intelligence experience began to organize evacuations to get both Americans and Afghans out of the country. Among them is former Force Recon Marine Chad Robichaux, who was deployed to Afghanistan eight times and has rescued more than 5,300 people from the country. He told the Daily Caller News Foundation about his efforts to rescue orphaned children and other vulnerable people in an Aug. 28 interview.
“We worked a relationship with a foreign government and their military to allow us to work with them and build a plan to clandestinely go in and get certain groups of people, move them onto the airport in Kabul and then utilize charter planes and some of the military aircraft [to get them out],” he said.
A volunteer group of U.S. Special Operations veterans also launched a mission last week to move people in small groups to the Kabul airport and evacuate them from the country. The mission, called the “Pineapple Express,” has reportedly rescued more than 500 people including vulnerable Afghans, according to ABC News.
In many of the private operations conducted by veterans and others, rescuers have used digital communications and other technology to act as emergency dispatchers, call in favors with guards, share intelligence about the Taliban and move families to the right runway to get on a flight, according to The Washington Post.
An air crew assigned to the 816th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron assists evacuees aboard a C-17 Globemaster III aircraft in support of the Afghanistan evacuation at Hamid Karzai International Airport on August 21, 2021 in Kabul, Afghanistan (Taylor Crul/U.S. Air Force via Getty Images)
A number of operations have used encrypted messaging apps like Slack and Signal to share sensitive information and send photos to the people being evacuated from Afghanistan. These efforts to communicate across thousands of miles are now being called “Digital Dunkirk” in reference to the evacuation of trapped Allied soldiers from the beaches of northern France during World War II.
Members of Congress have also scrambled in recent weeks to provide information to constituents trapped in Afghanistan and aid in evacuation efforts. Several lawmakers told the Daily Caller or other outlets that the State Department had refused to guarantee protection for Americans and Afghans at the airport in Kabul.
Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton was among the first members to encourage Americans trapped in Afghanistan to call his office, setting up an email address to help disseminate information. One Afghan American couple, who had been unable to get to the Kabul airport, made it past Taliban and U.S. security checkpoints with the help of Cotton, who gave them a military contact at the airport.
The Biden administration has taken fire from all sides amid the fallout of a chaotic U.S. withdrawal. As expected, Republicans have ripped the administration for leaving Americans behind, but corporate media outlets and even officials who served under former President Barack Obama have gone off on the administration.
Republicans lambasted the administration President Joe Biden is taking firefrom all sides amid the fallout, as the Taliban moves to consolidate its power in Afghanistan and thousands of U.S. citizens and Afghan allies remain trapped in the country.
“The fact that ‘Digital Dunkirk’ exists, it’s a wonderful tribute to the people doing it, obviously the people on the ground in Kabul are awesome, and I’m not talking about them, but the fact that it exists is a — there’s a failure here of the government,” Tapper said.
“My contention is that there is probably no way for the Afghan security forces and the government to collapse overnight and there not to have been a corresponding chaos on the ground and the scenes that you are seeing,” Murphy responded.
“But the idea that this is being done as efficiently as could be done just flies in the face of everything I’m sure you’re hearing behind the scenes, certainly everything I’m hearing,” Tapper shot back.
CNN host Jake Tapper called out Democratic Senate candidate Jon Ossoff on Sunday for his false attacks on incumbent Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler, who is running against Democrat candidate Raphael Warnock.
Ossoff’s attacks on Loeffler, falsely claiming that she has been “campaigning” with a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was so categorically false that left-leaning CNN ran a fact-check report on the claim last week.
“This is false,” CNN ruled. “A former member of the KKK took a photo with Loeffler while she was campaigning earlier this month. Loeffler’s campaign said the senator did not know who the man was and would have removed him from the event had she known. This is not, at all, the same as ‘campaigning with a klansman,’ as Ossoff claimed. Politicians often take pictures with people they don’t know.”
CNN noted that there was “no evidence” that Loeffler recognized or sought the support of the man in the picture. Loeffler’s campaign condemned the man, saying, “Kelly had no idea who that was, and if she had she would have kicked him out immediately because we condemn in the most vociferous terms everything that he stands for.”
Tapper pressed Ossoff about the claim during an interview on Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” which comes just two days before election day in Georgia.
Transcript of the exchange below:
JAKE TAPPER: You attacked Senator Loeffler this week, Loeffler, who is running against Democrat Raphael Warnock. You said that, quote, “Kelly Loeffler been campaigning with a Klansman” — unquote.
That’s not true. I mean, there — it is true that a former member of the Klan took a photo with Senator Loeffler at a campaign event. Her campaign says she didn’t know who he was at the time, and she has condemned him.
I’m sure you have taken photos with thousands of strangers. Isn’t it important for candidates to tell the truth?
JON OSSOFF: It is. And it’s even more distressing that this isn’t an isolated incident. Kelly Loeffler has repeatedly posed for photographs and been seen campaigning alongside radical white supremacists.
And I believe they’re drawn to her campaign, because her campaign has consisted almost entirely of racist attacks on the Black Lives Matter movement and on the black church. And so the fact that these elements continue to be drawn to her, to support her, to campaign alongside her, to appear in photos next to her is deeply distressing. And it’s happening at the same time that Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue and Georgia Republicans are mounting a vicious assault on voting rights in Georgia, lawsuit after lawsuit to disenfranchise black voters, purge the rolls, remove ballot drop boxes.
And I believe that one of the reasons we’re seeing such record-shattering turnout in Georgia right now is that Georgians are defying those efforts to rip away their voting rights and standing up and saying, we’re going to make our voices heard.
TAPPER: All right. But, just to be clear, she was not campaigning with a Klansman. That wasn’t true, what you said.
Former Vice President Joe Biden delivered a victory speech Saturday night calling for national unity, insisting the country to move past partisan divides to new heights.
“With the campaign over, it’s time to put the anger and the harsh rhetoric behind us and come together as a nation,”Biden said celebrating his media-declared victory. “It’s time for Americans to unite. And to heal.”
True to form, however, Biden cast no blame on the loudest voices within his own party or the Trump-deranged media vilifying the president and his supporters as white supremacist enemies of the state at every turn. In truth, Democrats want Trump-supporting Republicans to heel, not heal, while punishing those billed as “complicit” in the president’s supposedly authoritarian regime cutting taxes and opposing Democrats’ draconian lockdowns.
“You can’t heal or reform the GOP who are now an extremist party,” wrote New York Times writer Wajahat Ali, the same columnist who mocked Trump supporters as ignorant rubes on CNN earlier this year. “They have to be broken, burned down and rebuilt. When Biden is in power, treat them like the active threats to democracy they are. If those who committed crimes aren’t punished, then they will be more emboldened.”
The usual culprits concurred, offering their own remedies to rooting out Trumpism, which was supported by more than 71 million Americans at the ballot box this year. New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was one of the first to promote the idea of creating Soviet-style dissident lists to harass heretic Trump supporters.
“Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future?”Ocasio-Cortez pondered on Twitter.
The socialist congresswoman proceeded to mock the response from those she wished to punish.
“Lol a the ‘party of personal responsibility’ being upset at the idea of being responsible for their behavior over last four years,”she wrote.
Moments later, former Pete Buttigieg staffer Hari Sevugan responded to the congresswoman’s request touting the launch of the “Trump Accountability Project,” creating the lists in question “to make sure anyone who took a paycheck to help Trump undermine America is held responsible for what they did.”
Sevugan has since threatened potential future publishers and employers of ex-administration officials who dare make contracts with those who supported the president.
CNN’s Jake Tapper and the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin joined the chorus, demanding retribution against those demanding Trump have his day in court and every vote be counted before certifying the results of the election.
Labor Secretary Robert Reich had already recommended creating a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to put Trump backers on trial in October.
The calls for punishment of Trump supporters comprise just the latest episode in the nation’s downward spiral after the left and their allies in the corporate media spent years liberalizing definitions of white supremacy, racism, sexism, and homophobia to cast their opponents as contemptuous villains in the way of their utopian empire featuring actual racism. Biden has been no exception by calling Trump America’s first racist president, and neither has his running mate California Sen. Kamala Harris, who ushered donations to the Minnesota Freedom Fund bailing out Minneapolis rioters who burned down the city in the name of social justice.
The former vice president is not serious about national unity. If he were, he would have forcefully condemned calls within his own party to prosecute supporters of his November opponent. Biden cannot unify a country while still ignoring the loudest voices in it calling to punish political opponents for differences of political opinion.
Meanwhile, nothing about this president suggests he’s a white supremacist operating as a covert Klansmen in the Oval Office for the sole purpose of oppressing minorities. By the end of his first and potentially only term in the White House, Trump has probably condemned white supremacy more than any other president in front of a hostile media repeating this same question over and over. Whenever the media ask Trump to denounce white supremacy, it’s never a question, and it’s never presented in good faith. It’s always an accusation, an exhausting one at that.
A look at the exit polls, on the other hand, shows the media’s purported white supremacist president made considerable gains among Asian, black, and Hispanic voters while losing major ground among whites. That means there’s only one party that got more white this election, and it wasn’t the Republican Party.
In a concrete bid to “unify,” Biden’s transition team has floated the possibility of appointing Republicans to cabinet-level posts. Among the names touted, however, include Republicans who publicly engaged in the same attacks by the radical left on Trump and his supporters.
Elevating this kind of Republican is just as divisive, such as John Kasich who, while on a crusade for partisan unity has underhandedly fomented the very divisions the former governor claims to despise by endorsing impeachment and warning that Trump was rotting America’s “soul.” If Biden were serious about forming a bipartisan cabinet, then the media-declared president-elect would opt to include actual Republicans who espouse conservative ideas rather than token GOPers to claim unity.
Tristan Justice is a staff writer at The Federalist focusing on the 2020 presidential campaigns. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.
It’s probably a good question, before we go forward on a wider cultural discussion that involves unanimous consent for the three-word construct “black lives matter,” what those words really mean. The phrase itself, unless your views on race and culture are rebarbative, is axiomatic and has been since it was coined over a half-decade ago. You could plug almost any group into the blank space in “_______ lives matter” and you’d be right. This isn’t what it means.
The general conclusion we’ve reached over the gut-wrenching past few weeks, ever since the events leading up to the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody was available to watch by anyone with a cell phone, is that it means something nebulous-ish involving the force of the state being brought to bear on people of color in an inappropriate manner. The problem is that “nebulous-ish” part. The group Black Lives Matter was never quite just an official organization, it also wasn’t just a hashtag. This means that while it currently has one foot in mainstream acceptance, another foot remains in its roots as an organization on the far-ish reaches of the left.
If you wanted evidence of this residual hard-leftist slant, you need have looked no further than Patrisse Cullors’ appearance on CNN on Friday. Cullors was one of the founders of the movement back in 2013 and has remained one of its most prominent voices, which means she’s in demand again. On Friday, she appeared on CNN to discuss the movement and what its goals were. You may not be surprised at one of them:
During the interview on “The Lead,” Jake Tapper and his perma-scrunched face asked Cullors just what is it she wanted to do — at least when it came to the election.
Advertisement – story continues below
“I’ve heard a lot of criticism of former Vice President Joe Biden from civil rights activists,”Tapper said.
“The election, obviously, will be a choice. How do you think Biden matches up compared to President Trump when it comes to these issues that are important to you?”
The Lead CNN
✔@TheLeadCNN
President “Trump not only needs to not be in office in November but he should resign now,” says co-founder of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Patrisse Cullors. “Trump needs to be out of office. He is not fit for office.”
“Trump not only needs to not be in office in November, but he should resign now,” Cullors said.
“Trump needs to be out of office. He is not fit for office. And so what we are going to push for is a move to get Trump out. While we’re also going to continue to push and pressure Vice President Joe Biden around his policies and relationship to policing and criminalization. That’s going to be important. But our goal is to get Trump out.”
Advertisement – story continues below
In other words, at a basic level, this isn’t really about black lives — at least not for Cullors. After all, if Cullors’ belief is that all black people are in danger from a bigoted law enforcement structure, the obvious choice would be to work not only with white allies but also black individuals who make common cause with Trump on enough issues to vote for him.
And even though the possibility that Trump has support among black voters, polling from as recently as June 5 shows the incumbent president with black support that should give Democrats nightmares.
Rasmussen Reports
✔@Rasmussen_Poll
Reader Tip: Coming Later
Our Daily Presidential Tracking poll today shows Black Likely Voter approval of the job @realDonaldTrump is now over 40%.
Of course, Democrats won’t buy that number. And the mainstream media won’t be trying to sell it. But the point is, Rasmussen is a respectable polling organization. If Trump is running at 40 percent black voter support — or even half that number — he’s getting more support in that segment of the electorate than leftists believe.
And if that Rasmussen number is anywhere near correct, the woman who is accepted as speaking for Black Lives Matter is ignoring a substantial number of actual black lives in the United States. But building unity in the black community, or even reaching out to black Trump supporters, is not what this wing of Black Lives Matter is about. It’s about beating Donald Trump.
Now, the thing with Black Lives Matter is that Cullors does not — in fact, cannot — speak for the entire movement. That’s a weakness, both when it comes to organization and leadership, but it’s a strength when it comes to nailing down the protean nature of the organization. Black Lives Matter is more than just a slogan, but the great thing for its principals is that it’s like a slogan: It means exactly what you want it to mean.
It’s also good to know that at the same time Black Lives Matter is demanding redress for centuries-old issues, it’s ostensibly throwing its weight behind the Democratic Party, which was — in some of our lifetimes — the party of segregation and Jim Crow. (And as a relatively young senator in the 1970s, Biden had no problems buddying up to some of its most segregationist members.)
Cullors ignores this racist history.
And notice how Cullors makes it clear that her group needs to need to “pressure Vice President Joe Biden around his policies and relationship to policing and criminalization.” In other words, they know the former veep’s record around policing in this country
But this is just one voice, you may say. True — and therein lies the advantage.
Black Lives Matter is whatever you think it is, at least when it’s ingratiating itself to the public. Give its members a modicum of power, however, and you’ll see that change posthaste, especially in the run-up to the 2020 election.
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal for four years.
WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 26: Jeff Zucker and Jake Tapper attend the CNN Correspondents’ Brunch at Toolbox Studio on April 26, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Riccardo S. Savi/Getty Images)
The low-lights are endless, but if they’re still not enough for you, here are the awards from 2017 and 2018.
AND THE WINNERS ARE…
2019’s ‘Fox Staffer Caught Kissing Future Employer Jeff Zucker’s Ass the Most’ Award
Vice President Pence briefly sparred with CNN’s Jake Tapperon Sunday over reports of unsanitary, dangerous conditions in migrant detention centers.
“No American should approve of this mass influx of people coming across our border,”Pence said on “State of the Union.” “I was at the detention center in Nogales, [Ariz.]. … It is a heartbreaking scene. These are people who are being exploited by human traffickers. … Congress has to act.”
Tapper played a clip of Justice Department lawyer Sarah Fabian suggesting detained migrant children did not need toothbrushes or soap, prompting Pence to respond, “I can’t speak to what that lawyer was saying.” He then insisted congressional Democrats had resisted expanding bed space in detention centers.
Pence, asked about additional reports of conditions inside the facilities, said that “we’ve got to get to the root causes”by improving border security.
Tapper continued to press Pence on conditions in the facilities, telling him he had “the power right now to go back to the White House”and raise the issue. Pence defended U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel, calling them “dedicated men and women” who are “doing their level best every day.”
Immigration attorneys have said that four toddlers were sent to the hospital last week after they were held at a Border Patrol facility.
Pence’s comments came in the wake of reports that President Trumphad canceled sweeping Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in several major cities Sunday, saying he would give congressional Democrats two weeks to reach an immigration deal.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.